Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Occam's Razor and the WTC Impact Time Discrepancies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:53 PM
Original message
Occam's Razor and the WTC Impact Time Discrepancies
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:40 PM by mhatrw
WTC-1 "Impact" Times

8:46:26 +/-1 sec: LDEO's seismic evidence and 9:02:54+/-2 seconds
8:46:30 +/-1 sec: NIST's video evidence
8:46:40 (no MOE): 9/11 Commission's air traffic control evidence

WTC-2 "Impact" Times

9:02:54 +/-2 sec: LDEO's seismic evidence and 9:02:54+/-2 seconds
9:02:59 +/-1 sec: NIST's video evidence
9:03:11 (no MOE): 9/11 Commission's air traffic control evidence

Considering just WTC-1 to simplify the analysis (although the analysis works almost exactly the same and the timing discrepancies are even greater for WTC-2):

The seismic evidence, consisting of a clear 0.9 magnitude seismic event picked up at a LCSN station just 21 miles away from the World Trade Center, demonstrates an "impact" time with a published and peer reviewed uncertainty within one second. This is the hardest scientific evidence, and the hardest evidence to fake. Seismographs don't pick up clear seismic events without some sort of seismic disturbance. There absolutely must have been some sort of seismic event in the near vicinity of the LCSN station within a few seconds of this published time. If this seismic event occurred at the exact location of the World Trade Center (an assumption which nobody has yet disputed), then it must have happened within the published one second margin of error. This is basic and indisputable seismology.

NIST, using the timestamps from multiple video cameras that supposedly recorded this impact arrived an impact time that was a full FOUR seconds later than the baseline, rock solid seismic evidence. Furthermore, NIST claims in its peer reviewed publication that the timestamps from the disparate video cameras they examined were synchronized together to produce a margin of error of less than one second.

The 9/11 Commission, using NYC airspace air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data which are (and which must be) typically precise to the second, arrived at an impact time a full TEN seconds later than NIST's +/- one second video-derived impact time and a full FOURTEEN seconds later than the baseline, rock solid +/- one second seismic evidence. To put this in perspective, consider that a 767 traveling at its economical cruising speed of 525 mph travels over 2 full miles in fourteen seconds.

Assuming that at least most of the staff members of the 9/11 Commission and NIST scientists and video technicians who studied this matter acted in good faith, let's list the known facts:

1) There was a clear 0.9 magnitude seismic event in the near vicinity of the LCSN station within a few seconds of 8:46:26. If it occurred at the exact location of the World Trade Center, then this seismic event must have happened between 8:46:25 and 8:46:27.

2) The video footage that NIST examined synchronized so well that it led NIST's scientists to conclude that the WTC-1 impact actually occurred between 8:46:29 and 8:46:31.

3) The air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data that the 9/11 Commission analyzed led the 9/11 Commission to conclude that the impact of WTC-1 happened at 8:46:40 and the accuracy of this data was of comprehensive and persuasive enough to the Commission that they both ignored the seismic evidence discrepancy and listed no margin of error whatsoever. Note that in the case of Flight 93, the 9/11 Commission explicitly determined that its air traffic control and satellite data analysis was superior to published seismic evidence with these words, "the 10:03:11 time is supported by evidence from the (9/11 Commission) staffs radar analysis, ... NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data."

The simplest and easiest way to explain the conflicts in these three precise data sets (if one allows oneself to logically consider all possibilities) is to conclude that, although NIST's video engineers and most of the 9/11 Commission staff members analyzing the data they were provided acted in good faith, the actual evidence that both of these groups were supplied was faked. Furthermore, while this evidence was faked very professionally, the various intelligence assets that faked this evidence were not in perfect communication with each other (just as the 9/11 Commission suggested), and therefore were unable to perfectly synchronize their fakery.

As for why the video as well as the air traffic control evidence would need to be faked, I wouldn't hasten to speculate except to mention that this line speculation provides an alternative explanation for the indisputable 0.9 magnitude seismic event: an explosion that rocked the entire WTC-1 so that the building perceptibly swayed was necessary in order to provide the illusion that the tower had just been slammed into by a 767.

Personally, I don't think this line of speculation provides any benefit for those of us demanding a full and independent investigation of 9/11 to answer the myriad of unanswered questions about the worst attack on US soil in the last century. However, it is the simplest explanation for the conflicting times of impact and as such needs to be taken into profound consideration by anyone trying to "analyze" away these discrepancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. I suspect Occam
is rolling over in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Would you care to offer a reasoned rebuttal or is that all you have
to offer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I was mearly pointing out that the use of Occam's Razors
principle to justify your conclusion is unjustified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Can you try
to avoid using putdowns when you respond to threads where someone has apparently put a little thought into their theory?

If you have evidence to present that can prove the theory wrong, please present it. Your distractions are getting old.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I did not put down anyone
Occam's Razor implies that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything a form of reductionism. While I guess you can say my post was a distraction, it was not a putdown, it was pointing out the obvious that reducing the possibilities that may explain the time discrepancies, one cannot logically conclude that seismic data is correct and the balance of information was forged or faked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. When you tell someone
'your conclusion is unjustified' and you offer little in the way of explanation, that is a put down.

The answer you posted to me is much more appropriate and omits the judgement of the OP.

Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. You have a rather odd definition of put down
Most would require that something is said that is disparaging, or unjustifiably critical, perhaps if I slighted the poster.

Without being judgmental how were you able to determine the appropriateness of my post to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Why not? What's your explanation?
There are three different sets of impact times -- all supposedly accurate to within a second and none within 3 seconds of each other.

If one considers an inside job as reasonable as Osama & the Nineteen outwitting our entire intelligence for 2 years leading up to 9/11 and our entire military for 2 hours on 9/11, then simplest solution is to conclude that the hardest-to-fake data set (the seismic evidence) is accurate and the two other data sets are faked. Sure, the other two data sets may both be flawed for some disparate and complicated (and currently completely unexplained) reasons other than fakery -- but not for any single, simple reason other than fakery.

Remember, you need to make your explanation simpler than mine (in terms of the number of entities required to explain the conflicting data) to satisfy your erstwhile friend Occam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Lets see
Anywhere from two to three of the times is incorrect. Now lets reduce the "how can this be" question to only two solutions.

1. The times were faked on at least two (possibly three) methods used to determine the time of impact. Faking the data on at least one or possibly two time methods seems rather complex. It is also rather a stretch to see this as some sort of strong evidence of a conspiracy, as there is actually zero evidence anything was faked.

or

2. Anywhere between none and one of the times is correct, the incorrect times are a result of sloppiness, human error, something unknown, or impossible to determine after the fact. Speaking from experience it is quite difficult to determine why things don't fit exactly as thought well after the event. For instance lets say the seismograph was slightly out of calibration on 9/11; there would be no way (or at least very unlikely) to be able to determine the accuracy of the device a year ot two later.

The bottom line is that Occam's Razor would indicate something mundane yet unknown is the cause of the differing times, not someone purposefully faking data in such a public way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-16-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. That's a non-explanation.
Tell us all exactly why at least two of the three measurements are inaccurate. Your "explanation" of "sloppiness, human error, something unknown, or impossible to determine after the fact" specifies four new explicative entities yet explains nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. Curious?
Where there any spikes before the towers began to fall?

There is audio evidence of distinctive booms before each event. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Yes, there were.


Note the precursor spikes that occurred between 15 and 30 seconds before the main collapse spikes. I assume that these precursor spikes were interpreted as large pieces of debris that impacted the ground before the majority of the collapsing mass of the towers coupled to the ground, but there are other possible and perhaps more reasonable interpretations.

Also note that both of the supposed "plane impacts" registered as more powerful seismic events than the collapse of WTC-7!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I would be surprised if the impacts from the planes
would have caused much of a seismic effect because of the way the building was constructed. The buildings were designed to sway a fair bit and was build on shock absorbers. Underneath the foundation was the granite that makes up Manhattan Island.

I would think this would bolster the evidence for explosives? There isn't much else that I can come up with that would create the shock waves that you see in the seismic records?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes. This bolsters the evidence for explosives greatly.
Mine blasts and other underground explosions leave seismic signatures like this every day. In contrast, there is no evidence that a plane hitting a huge building ever has, ever would or ever will. The plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was just feet off the ground, but left no evidence of any seismic event.

Here's civil engineering study that shows that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the WTC impacting aircraft was used to damage columns: http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0527767

I'd assume that almost all of the remaining 54% of the kinetic energy was: 1) converted to heat, sound and other localized vibrations, 2) used to expel debris -- like airplane parts -- far from the impact site, and 3) used to perceptibly move these incredibly massive towers. It's very hard to believe that enough of the remaining kinetic energy managed to traverse the entire frame of the these incredibly massive buildings and couple to the ground such that a discrete 0.9 magnitude seismic event could be recorded some 21 miles away.

Finally, consider that Flight 93 supposedly hit the ground almost perpendicularly going 575 mph and the 9/11 Commission says that this event left no recorded seismic event (but something unexplained and unidentified happened 3 minutes later that did).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. 3 minutes later then what?
Weren't there at least 3 times reported for Flight 93 crashing too?

Also the time for Flight 77 is all over the map. What is so damn hard about figuring out what time these planes crashed? Wouldn't the flight data recorders show time of impact?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. My recollection was that the Palisades seismographic station was
too close to the site (s and p waves overlapped) so its
ability to measure precise times was compromised.

Were there measurements from more distant stations?

Your thesis is an interesting one.

I have wondered if the apparent explosive overkill in
pulverizing the concrete was a deliberate error on the
part of some explosives expert who figured he was
going to be killed, so he might as well do what he could
to foil the plot after the fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. RE: Discrepancies
 
mhatrw wrote:
Considering just WTC-1 to simplify the analysis (although the analysis works almost exactly the same and the timing discrepancies are even greater for WTC-2):

The seismic evidence, consisting of a clear 0.9 magnitude seismic event picked up at a LCSN station just 21 miles away from the World Trade Center, demonstrates an "impact" time with a published and peer reviewed uncertainty within one second. This is the hardest scientific evidence, and the hardest evidence to fake. Seismographs don't pick up clear seismic events without some sort of seismic disturbance. There absolutely must have been some sort of seismic event in the near vicinity of the LCSN station within a few seconds of this published time. If this seismic event occurred at the exact location of the World Trade Center (an assumption which nobody has yet disputed), then it must have happened within the published one second margin of error. This is basic and indisputable seismology.

NIST, using the timestamps from multiple video cameras that supposedly recorded this impact arrived an impact time that was a full FOUR seconds later than the baseline, rock solid seismic evidence. Furthermore, NIST claims in its peer reviewed publication that the timestamps from the disparate video cameras they examined were synchronized together to produce a margin of error of less than one second.

The 9/11 Commission, using NYC airspace air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data which are (and which must be) typically precise to the second, arrived at an impact time a full TEN seconds later than NIST's +/- one second video-derived impact time and a full FOURTEEN seconds later than the baseline, rock solid +/- one second seismic evidence.

Seismic Events
You claim that it is indisputable that the seismic events must have taken place within the published margin of error. One of the main authors of the original paper subsequently did a second paper1 and determined the impact events happened 3 seconds later than the times that were originally published. 3 seconds is outside the margin of error. Maybe the original times are not quite so indisputable.

Broadcast Television Times
It is clearly explained in the NIST report how they arrived at their impact times - how you could so completely misrepresent what they did is surprising.

First they created a relative timeline to place the events according to how much time before or after the WTC2 impact they occurred. This relative timeline was done by using video and photographic evidence. Then they determined the actual impact time for WTC2 using footage of four different timestamped live television broadcasts that captured the impact event. Once they had this time they used it to calculate the actual times for the rest of the events in their relative timeline.

The 9/11 Commission Times
The note in their report for the time of the WTC1 impact states that it was based on the "NTSB report, 'Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11,' Feb. 19, 2002." And according to their notes, the WTC2 impact time was determined with the "NTSB report, 'Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175,' Feb. 19, 2002" and also "based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic."

The NTSB reports clearly state that their information is based on radar data and the impact times are given as approximations. Additionally, the only reference in the 9/11 Commission report to infrared satellite data being used is related to Flight 93's impact time. You are simply making assumptions about the precise methods used to come up with their times for the WTC1 and WTC2 impacts.

In the FAA's "Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,2001", the impact time for WTC1 based on radar data was 8:46:35 am. This differs from the 9/11 Commission's time by 5 seconds. Both times appear to be based on radar data, yet they are not the same. Perhaps your statement regarding the precision of radar data is simply incorrect.


Notes:

1.  Kim, W.X., 2005 "Analysis of Seismogram Data Recorded on September 11, 2001 during the World Trade Center, New York City Disaster, Final Technical Report to the Building and Fire Research Laboratory," Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, January 31.   (return)

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Provide us with the link to this subsequent "corrected" report, please.
Who commissioned the second paper? Who published the second paper? Who employs the second paper's sole author? What is this sole author's explanation for publishing an initial report in which the margin of error claimed was not accurate? Why is the initial report and not the supposedly "corrected" version still up on the LDEO's website? Why is there no mention whatsoever of the "corrected" report anywhere on the entire internet (except here and, I presume, in NIST's footnotes)?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Analysis+of+Sei...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I thought you did research concerning those questions already.
After providing contact information for the author the last time we discussed this matter, I was confident that you would be able to obtain the answers to any questions that you might have regarding this issue. Did Dr. Kim not respond to your inquiries?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. No, he did not.
Perhaps you would like to in his stead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. That's disappointing.
Edited on Thu Dec-28-06 02:28 AM by Make7
quicknthedead said that Dr. Kim responded to his initial email - I wonder if Dr. Kim is now receiving too many inquiries regarding this issue to respond to all of them.

I'm sure you've probably already done this, but the next obvious organization to contact would be the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST. Here is an email address: bfrl@nist.gov

Last time I checked their website didn't have Dr. Kim's paper listed in the online publications, but they may have updated what is available since then.

There are a number of references to his paper in the final WTC report, although it isn't always listed using the same title as the one that I previously posted. To be thorough, you may want to list the following three references from the NIST NCSTAR 1 report (final and draft versions):

Kim, W.X., 2005 "Analysis of Seismogram Data Recorded on September 11, 2001 during the World Trade Center, New York City Disaster, Final Technical Report to the Building and Fire Research Laboratory," Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, January 31.

Kim, W. 2005. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Analysis of September 11, 2001, Seismogram Data, NIST NCSTAR 1-6G. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD, December.

Kim, W. 2006. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Analysis of September 11, 2001, Seismogram Data. (Provisional). NIST NCSTAR 1-6G. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD.

Hopefully one of those will turn up something.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. The questions are simple.
Who commissioned the second paper? Who published the second paper? Who employs the second paper's sole author? What is this sole author's explanation for publishing an initial report in which the margin of error claimed was not accurate? Why is the initial report and not the supposedly "corrected" version still up on the LDEO's website? Why is there no mention whatsoever of the "corrected" report anywhere on the entire internet (except here and in NIST's footnotes)?

They currently remain completely unanswered.

Now I must add one to the list, namely, what is the actual published title of this paper?

I would love to read this report, but it doesn't seem to published anywhere (except as a reference in NIST's footnotes) and its author is strangely reluctant to discuss it.

As far as I am concerned, it's just another case of "trust us, there's nothing to see here" by a crew that has already proven itself completely untrustworthy again and again and again. However, I am openminded to investigating this further if someone could produce the second article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-28-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Did the Building and Fire Research Laboratory get back to you already?
Did they not have any answers to your questions? I really believe they should be able to answer most of them.

They certainly should have a copy of the report. Did they give you a reason for not providing you with one?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Perhaps you could do me the favor of obtaining it?
I wrote the author. I received no response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Perhaps I could.
And perhaps, to see if they can provide you with some answers, you could at least contact the Building and Fire Research Laboratory.


mhatrw wrote in the opening post:
The simplest and easiest way to explain the conflicts in these three precise data sets (if one allows oneself to logically consider all possibilities) is to conclude that, although NIST's video engineers and most of the 9/11 Commission staff members analyzing the data they were provided acted in good faith, the actual evidence that both of these groups were supplied was faked. Furthermore, while this evidence was faked very professionally, the various intelligence assets that faked this evidence were not in perfect communication with each other (just as the 9/11 Commission suggested), and therefore were unable to perfectly synchronize their fakery.

Frankly I think this "faked data" theory of yours is highly unlikely. Is it reasonable to assume that live television broadcasts were somehow "faked", yet no one could muster up the relatively simple technology to synchronize the detonation of "basement bombs" with those very images?

Maybe a simpler explanation is that the NIST impact times based on video evidence are correct; that calculating the time of these seismic events, given the circumstances, is sufficiently complex that it may be unreasonable to expect them to be any closer than within a few seconds of the actual impact time; and that the impact times based on the radar data are off by a small margin, possibly due to incomplete data and/or clock sync issues.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Who said the "live" television images were faked?
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 06:24 PM by mhatrw
I am simply disputing that video recorded images can be used to time events more accurately than seismographic data from a seismic station just a few miles away.

And no television stations showed either plane impact on live TV. You know that as well as I do. Why are you trying to spread disinformation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. It is actually part of your own argument.
Although it seems that you remain unaware of that fact. To illustrate, let me start by quoting from your opening post.

mhatrw wrote:
...although NIST's video engineers and most of the 9/11 Commission staff members analyzing the data they were provided acted in good faith, the actual evidence that both of these groups were supplied was faked.

   -snip-

As for why the video as well as the air traffic control evidence would need to be faked...

It seems clear to me that you are saying their time was based on "faked" video data.

Now let's look at how NIST determined their times.

3.6   Absolute Time Accuracy

Many of the news broadcasts on September 11, 2001, had the current time imprinted on the screen. These imprints are known in the industry as "bugs". As these broadcasts were timed, it became apparent that there were small differences between times for the second aircraft impact based on these bugs and the time used as the basis for the database. Checks with several broadcasters indicated that the bugs should be quite close to the actual time because the clocks used as sources for the bugs are regularly updated from highly accurate sources, such as geopositioning satellites or the precise atomic-clock-based timing signals provided by NIST as a public service. Careful checks showed small time differences between different video recordings, but these were generally less than 1 s. These small discrepancies were likely due to variations in transmission times resulting from the different pathways that the video signals took to the sites where they were recorded. Based on four independent video recordings, the actual time of the second aircraft impact was determined to be 9:02:59 a.m., or 5 s later than the time assigned in developing the database. The estimated uncertainty is 1 s.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf   (pdf page 119)
DIAL-UP USERS WARNING: This file is extremely large.

It also seems clear to me that NIST used recordings of live news broadcasts that had the current time displayed to determine the actual time of the second impact.

So, please explain how you can believe that the video data NIST used to determine their times was "faked", but the live television broadcasts (which they used) were not.


mhatrw wrote:
And no television stations showed either plane impact on live TV. You know that as well as I do. Why are you trying to spread disinformation?

Well, you seem to have taken a position that is contrary to almost everyone else's that has done any research concerning this issue. (Try looking at footage from WABC and WNYW.)

So, it would seem that you are the one spreading erroneous information. Whether it is deliberate, or simply caused by not doing your homework adequately is anybody's guess.

What did you think I was talking about under the heading Broadcast Television Times in my previous post?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. What?
Exactly which TV stations broadcast 9/11 collisions live? When? Where?

What links lead to their footage?

Why are you pretending that this is common knowledge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Flight 175 Crashes into WTC South Tower; Millions Watch Live on Television
 
9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Crashes into WTC South Tower; Millions Watch Live on Television

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Please tell me you are familiar with Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline project; even if you are not, I believe most people interested in this topic are.


mhatrw wrote:
Exactly which TV stations broadcast 9/11 collisions live?

I already gave you two stations that broadcast original live footage of the second impact in my last post. Have you for some reason been unable to find any of their footage of the second impact?


mhatrw wrote:
When? Where?

Around 9:03am EDT.
New York, NY.


mhatrw wrote:
What links lead to their footage?

The footage from the previously listed stations are the ones that are most often used - here's a link to original live footage from the local area station New York One:

http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911popup2.html


mhatrw wrote:
Why are you pretending that this is common knowledge?

I didn't say it was common knowledge, I said people that have actually researched this issue knew about it. Although according to Paul Thompson's timeline, millions of people are aware of it - unfortunately you do not seem to be one of them.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I hate this kind of nonsense.
This is obviously some sort of a game for you. Great. You just scored a point. Hooray for you.

Do you or do you not have an exhaustive list of which television stations showed the 9:03 crash live?

Do you or do you not agree that the first crash was not shown live on any television station?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I guess I see things a little differently.
The impression I get from your posts is that often instead of making the effort required to conduct your own research, or even just look up the research others have done, you seem to simply ask questions of people that you disagree with. In my case, someone that you have accused of spreading disinformation and also implied was paid to post here. Perhaps that is your idea of a meaningful dialogue.

In your opening post, you advanced the hypothesis that the evidence used by NIST and the 9/11 Commission was "faked" by intelligence assets, but when presenting your case you completely misrepresent how NIST arrived at their impact times and make assumptions regarding the information that was used by the 9/11 Commission to determine theirs.

If you had bothered to actually research how NIST calculated their times before posting about them, you would have known that they used live television broadcasts to pinpoint the time of the WTC2 impact. You can agree or disagree whether that method would be accurate, but you should at least present their position accurately. That also pertains to your belief that the 9/11 Commission's WTC impact times were in part based on infrared satellite data; nowhere in their report is such a thing stated.


mhatrw wrote:
Do you or do you not have an exhaustive list of which television stations showed the 9:03 crash live?

I never said that I did.


mhatrw wrote:
Do you or do you not agree that the first crash was not shown live on any television station?

I never claimed that it was.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Great, so we get nowhere except that you throw a few insults
around and get to act superior. Hooray for you.

1) Does the NIST have an exhaustive list of which television stations showed the 9:03 crash live? If not, why not? If so, what timing discrepancies were observed among this live video footage? What were these timing discrepancies? What is NIST's explanation for these timing discrepancies?

2) Which are generally more reliable in terms of the time synchronization, seismograph clocks or video camera clocks?

No, I didn't not realize that there was live TV footage of the 9:03 crash because I was watching TV that morning, flipping through all the channels, and didn't see any video representation of the crash at the time. When the stations started showing it, they made a big deal about getting the footage. I've never claimed to know every single fact about 9/11, so your generalized criticism of me based on the fact that I do not is nothing more than a subjective personal attack that does nothing to advance discussion.

However, in general, I'm not asking questions because I don't know the answers. It's simply a little discussion technique called the Socratic method. It's purpose is to lead toward greater understanding of truth, unlike generalized personal attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. You're quick to take offense.
I didn't read any insult at all in Make7's comments. In fact, he's going above and beyond in maintaining a respectful tone.

Your use of the Socratic method is off, however. Socrates learned just as much from his method as the people he questioned. You already have the answers you seek.

And that's your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Wrong. I learned things on this very thread.
Unfortunately, learning anything through all of these personal attacks is like pulling teeth.

And I'm not taking offense at anything except wasting time that could be better used in a discussion with individuals who care more about discovering the truth than scoring points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Double Negative
A few posts ago you asked, "Why are you trying to spread disinformation?"

Did you honestly believe asking that question of me was going to lead to a more friendly conversation?

mhatrw wrote:
I didn't not realize that there was live TV footage of the 9:03 crash because I was watching TV that morning, flipping through all the channels, and didn't see any video representation of the crash at the time. When the stations started showing it, they made a big deal about getting the footage. I've never claimed to know every single fact about 9/11, so your generalized criticism of me based on the fact that I do not is nothing more than a subjective personal attack that does nothing to advance discussion.

(I'll assume that double negative was unintentional.)

In the first thread here concerning the discrepancies in the reported WTC impact times, it was mentioned numerous times that there was live TV footage. You had over thirty posts in that thread and had several in the sub-thread concerning the NIST impact times. That sub-thread began with a question concerning the live news broadcasts of the second impact, and then proceeded to discuss repeatedly how NIST determined their times - including quotes from their report. I replied to one of your posts in that sub-thread with a link to webpage that had a video of the live footage from what looks to be KTLA using WNYW's live feed of the second impact. And at the very beginning of the sub-thread there was a link to a youtube video of WNYW's footage.

I would also like to point out this quote from one of my posts elsewhere in that thread that you subsequently responded to:

I wrote:
In the NIST report it was determined that the impact time for the South Tower was 9:02:59. This was based on four independent news broadcasts with real-time clocks displayed on screen.

So you see, the issue really isn't you not knowing some particular aspect of information about 9/11, it is you not knowing it after the information has already been pointed out to you.

Perhaps the reason you feel you are getting nowhere is simply because you haven't been paying close enough attention.


The issue with the times calculated from seismic data is not one of determining when the data itself was recorded, it is about how accurately the time of the seismic event in question can be determined from that. (If I depart from downtown Manhattan and arrive in Palisades at exactly 3:47:34 pm, how long did it take me to get there?) This has also been discussed previously.


mhatrw wrote:
I wish I was getting paid for this, too.

That is from one of your replies to me in the previous thread about the WTC impact times. Does that mean you believe I am paid to post here at DU? Would you consider that a "generalized personal attack", or is there some more innocent explanation?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Hooray, another post where you try to score points while avoiding
the point.

1) Does the NIST have an exhaustive list of which television stations showed the 9:03 crash live? If not, why not? If so, what timing discrepancies were observed among this live video footage? What were these timing discrepancies? What is NIST's explanation for these timing discrepancies?

2) Which are generally more reliable in terms of the time synchronization, seismograph clocks or video camera clocks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. I thought most of those points had been addressed.
All but the "exhaustive list".

mhatrw wrote:
1) Does the NIST have an exhaustive list of which television stations showed the 9:03 crash live? If not, why not? ...

Do you mean a list of every affiliate station in the country that used original feeds from other stations? For instance, WNYW is the FOX station in New York, do you believe the list should include every station in the United States that used their feed?

Perhaps you could explain in more detail what you believe should be in this list and what significance it may have.


mhatrw wrote:
1) ... what timing discrepancies were observed among this live video footage? What were these timing discrepancies? What is NIST's explanation for these timing discrepancies?

Careful checks showed small time differences between different video recordings, but these were generally less than 1 s. These small discrepancies were likely due to variations in transmission times resulting from the different pathways that the video signals took to the sites where they were recorded.

Post #27

(Of course those answers from NIST will probably not be enough for you.)

mhatrw wrote:
2) Which are generally more reliable in terms of the time synchronization, seismograph clocks or video camera clocks?

Video camera clocks? Should I assume that you are talking about the clocks displayed on the live news broadcasts?

Many of the news broadcasts on September 11, 2001, had the current time imprinted on the screen. These imprints are known in the industry as "bugs". As these broadcasts were timed, it became apparent that there were small differences between times for the second aircraft impact based on these bugs and the time used as the basis for the database. Checks with several broadcasters indicated that the bugs should be quite close to the actual time because the clocks used as sources for the bugs are regularly updated from highly accurate sources, such as geopositioning satellites or the precise atomic-clock-based timing signals provided by NIST as a public service.

Post #27

As far as the seismograph clocks are concerned:

The issue with the times calculated from seismic data is not one of determining when the data itself was recorded, it is about how accurately the time of the seismic event in question can be determined from that. (If I depart from downtown Manhattan and arrive in Palisades at exactly 3:47:34 pm, how long did it take me to get there?)

Post #35

- Make7
I predict there is more to your questions than just getting answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. No, the questions haven't been answered.
Edited on Tue Jan-02-07 01:37 PM by mhatrw
So far, we have been presented with four different impact times for Flight 11's impact into WTC-1.

WTC-1:

8:46:26 +/-1 sec: LDEO's initial seismic estimate
8:46:29 (currently unknown margin of error): Kim's supposedly revised seismic estimate
8:46:30 +/-1 sec: NIST's estimate derived from live video of WTC-2 tower's impact subtracting back the relative time difference from the two seismic peaks recorded at LDEO.
8:46:40 (no margin of error listed): 9/11 Commission's (NSTB's) air traffic control and radar evidence

Which of these four estimates would you judge most accurate? In order to answer this question, we need to know:

1) What is Kim's explanation for the second, unpublished seismic estimate falling outside of the published MOE of the first, published seismic estimate?

2) Exactly how many live video broadcast sources exist for the WTC-2 tower's impact that included a timestamp "bug" and what did these each of timestamps say at the moment of impact? The fact that the NIST examined four examples of live video to arrive at their estimate is meaningless without information about which of these live video feeds included timestamps, what each of these timestamps showed, and whether any other live video evidence showing timestamps were excluded from this analysis.

3) Exactly what evidence did the 9/11 Commission use to arrive at their published impact estimate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. I was referring to the points in the post that I replied to.
I thought by quoting them directly in my response it would be obvious those were the questions I was referring to in my last post title.


In your list of impact times you should probably also include the FAA time from their summary: 8:46:35. (see post #17)

You have again misrepresented how NIST arrived at their impact time. As you can see from table H-3, the time determined for the first impact in their relative timeline is different than the one calculated from the original seismic data.



For a more detailed explanation of the NIST times, including additional information concerning the recent seismic data analysis (e.g. the margin of error, etc.), you can read their report at the link provided in post #27. I'm surprised that you still haven't read at least that portion of the NIST report. If you took a few minutes to read the sections about the impact times, perhaps you would not continue to make errors when posting about them.

mhatrw wrote:
Which of these four estimates would you judge most accurate?

"A simpler explanation [for the discrepancies] is that the NIST impact times based on video evidence are correct; that calculating the time of these seismic events, given the circumstances, is sufficiently complex that it may be unreasonable to expect them to be any closer than within a few seconds of the actual impact time; and that the impact times based on the radar data are off by a small margin, possibly due to incomplete data and/or clock sync issues." (from post #25)

mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:

1) What is Kim's explanation for the second, unpublished seismic estimate falling outside of the published MOE of the first, published seismic estimate?

Perhaps you are going about the seismic data issue the wrong way. Since it seems you have been unsuccessful in obtaining additional information regarding the paper Dr. Kim did for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, perhaps you can simply prove that the first published seismic estimate was correct. That would discount the more recently calculated seismic impact times.

mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:

2) Exactly how many live video broadcast sources exist for the WTC-2 tower's impact that included a timestamp "bug" and what did these each of timestamps say at the moment of impact? The fact that the NIST examined four examples of live video to arrive at their estimate is meaningless without information about which of these live video feeds included timestamps, what each of these timestamps showed, and whether any other live video evidence showing timestamps were excluded from this analysis.

The best course of action might be to contact NIST (wtc@nist.gov) to see if they have a more detailed explanation to offer than that in their final report. I would just add that the broadcasts of the local New York stations which were the original sources for the live feeds would seem to confirm the time reported by NIST.

mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:

3) Exactly what evidence did the 9/11 Commission use to arrive at their published impact estimate?

I'm glad you brought this up, I thought you might have been avoiding the issue when you didn't address it in your response to my first post in this thread. (see post #17)

I would like to direct your attention to the following quotes from the opening post:

mhatrw wrote:
The 9/11 Commission, using NYC airspace air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data which are (and which must be) typically precise to the second...

   -snip-

The air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data that the 9/11 Commission analyzed led the 9/11 Commission to conclude that the impact of WTC-1 happened at 8:46:40 and the accuracy of this data was of comprehensive and persuasive enough to the Commission that they both ignored the seismic evidence discrepancy and listed no margin of error whatsoever.

So you believe the 9/11 Commission analysis of "faked" data was "precise to the second", yet you don't know exactly what evidence they used to arrive at their impact times. (Of course, the NIST "estimate is meaningless" without more comprehensive information on how they arrived at their impact times. Interesting...)

This brings to mind a few questions:
  1. Did the timestamps from the radar data used by the 9/11 Commission precisely record the correct current time?
  2. Did they extrapolate any of their information because the last radar return(s) were still some distance from the WTC?
  3. Was the radar data used from a single site? Or was the data from more than one location compared to determine the impact time(s)?
  4. Why are the second impact times based on radar data reported by the NTSB, the FAA, and the 9/11 Commission all different if the data is "typically precise to the second"?
  5. Is there a reason that you claimed their WTC impact times were in part based on infrared satellite data when it does not say that in their own report?
- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb 23rd 2018, 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC